On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:13 PM Matheus Tavares Bernardino <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:02 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Matheus! > > Hi, Elijah. > > First of all, thanks for taking the time to go over these topics in > great detail. I must say it's much clearer for me now. > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 4:15 PM Matheus Tavares Bernardino > > <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [...] > > One more useful case to consider before we start adding SKIP_WORKTREE > > into the mix. Let's say that you have three files: > > fileA > > fileB > > fileC > > and all of them are tracked. You have made edits to fileA and fileB, > > and ran 'rm fileC' (NOT 'git rm fileC', i.e. the deletion is not > > staged). Now, you run 'git grep mystring'. Quick question: Which > > files are searched for 'mystring'? Well... > > * REVISION and --cached were left out of the git grep command, so > > working tree files should be searched, not staged versions or versions > > from other commits > > * No flags like --untracked or --no-exclude-standard were included, > > so only tracked files in the working tree should be searched > > * There are two files in the working tree, both tracked: fileA and fileB. > > So, this searches fileA and fileB. In particular: NO VERSION of fileC > > is searched. fileC may be tracked/cached, but we don't search any > > version of that file, because this particular command line is about > > searching the working directory and fileC is not in the working > > directory. To the best of my knowledge, git grep has always behaved > > that way. > > > > Users understand the idea of searching the working copy vs. the index > > vs. "old" (or different) versions of the repository. They also > > understand that when searching the working copy, by default a subset > > of the files are searched. Tell me: given all this information here, > > what possible explanation is there for SKIP_WORKTREE entries to be > > translated into searches of the cache when --cached is not specified? > > Please square that away with the fact that 'rm fileC' results in fileC > > NOT being searched. > > > > It's just completely, utterly wrong. > > Makes sense, thanks. I agree that we shouldn't fall back to the cache > when searching the working tree. > > > Also, hopefully this helps answer your question about --untracked and > > skip_worktree. --untracked is only useful when searching through the > > working tree, and is entirely about adding the "untracked" category to > > the things we search. The skip_worktree bit is about adding more > > granularity to the "tracked" category. The two are thus entirely > > orthogonal and --untracked shouldn't change behavior at all in the > > face of sparse checkouts. > > Thanks, your explanation clarified the issue I had. I see now why > --untracked and --ignore-sparsity don't make sense together. > > It also made me think about the combination of --cached and > --untracked which, IIUC, should be prohibited. I will add a patch in > v2, making git-grep error out in this case. > > > And I also think it explains more when the sparsity patterns and > > --ignore-sparsity-patterns flags even matter. The division of working > > tree files which were tracked into two subsets (those that match > > sparsity patterns and those that don't) didn't matter because only one > > of those two sets existed and could be searched. So the question is, > > when can the sparsity pattern divide a set of files into two subsets > > where both are non-empty? And the answer is when --cached or REVISION > > is specified. > > Makes sense. I will add in --ignore-sparsity's description that it is > only relevant with --cached or REVISION, as you previously suggested. > When it is used outside of these cases, though, I think we could just > warn that --ignore-sparsity will be discarded (to avoid erroring out > when users have grep.ignoreSparsity enabled). Not grep.ignoreSparsity but core.ignoreSparsity or core.$WHATEVER ;-)
